You are here

Home » Six Theses on Authority and Socialism: A Refusal to Suffer the Fools Who Think Anarchy is Socialism, or Vice Versa

Six Theses on Authority and Socialism: A Refusal to Suffer the Fools Who Think Anarchy is Socialism, or Vice Versa

Posted on:19 January 2018

By:Anonymous (not verified)

One.
Authority is the lifeblood of socialism, indeed of all the socialisms. The principle of authority, of command dominates the history of socialism from its first inception by Babeuf during the Directory right down through the various Marxist socialisms. While Marx and his ideas are clearly authoritarian, and hence fall outside the scope of these theses, it is the earlier variants of the socialist ideas that interest us. What of Marx’s forbears? The so-called Utopians and the various intentional communities in the United States? As will see, there has never been nor could there ever be a truly libertarian socialism—as freedom and socialism are derived from different bases and are fundamentally opposed, in theory as in fact.

Two.
With the fall of the Jacobin Republic and it’s replacement in rapid succession by the Thermidorian Reaction and the Directory those militants, primarily associated with the Revolutionary Commune began to rethink and rework the ideas first pushed onto the stage of history by Robespierre, Saint-Just during the earthshaking and terrible experience of The Year II. Among these ideologues was a former procurement officer from the Commune, Gracchus Babeuf. In developing his ideas he would evolve essentially the first group of professional revolutionaries, the Conspiracy of Equals, and simultaneously build the idea of the capture of power and the use of the nation-state to realize a socialist society—The Republic of Equals. Of course all this equality was meant to be created, maintained and enforced by the state. With a guaranteed breakfast and living quarters, however, who has need for freedom? Before he was guillotined, Babeuf had written to a friend,: "I believe that in some future day men will give thought again to the means of procuring for the human race the happiness which we have proposed for it." Unfortunately, this prediction proved to be correct. Bullseye.

Three.
Saint-Simon will appear next on the stage and his ideas stretch authority to new limits. He theorized that society, globally, would be divided into three great classes, the savants, the propertied, and the unpropertied. The savants would form the Council of Newton, which was to be made up of three mathematicians, three physicians, three chemists, three physiologists, three litterateurs, three painters and three musicians; and it was to occupy itself with devising new inventions and works of art for the general improvement of humanity. The actual power in Saint-Simon’s world community was to be yielded by the wealthy who have enough freedom to devote time and service to the state. This, in spite of any evidence to the contrary that the wealthy legislate in their own interests and against everyone else’s—Saint-Simon was certain that his socialism would produce a new human—devoted to service and without a shred of avarice or self-interest. After Saint-Simon’s death his disciples ran riot with a few of his ideas about religion with Prosper Enfantin declaring himself to be the son of the living God and a new Pope to boot. They fade rapidly into socialist history by the 1850s.

Four.
Fourier clearly fits into a lot of our ideas about human communities. As an example his idea that if enough people played, instead of worked, that society would operate in the best interest of all. The Situationists were fascinated by Fourier, and so should we be. Yet lurking on the far side of Fourier’s phalansterie system is a hierarchy even more bizarre and complex than Saint-Simon’s. Based loosely on the individual’s preferences for food, and the types of work they like, the clothes they wear—it must be stated that the phalansterie system is likely one of the most rigid, authoritarian community’s ever devised. In actual practice the various Fourierist experiments collapsed in part due the static and pre-defined work and diet routines—in spite of Horace Greeley’s cheerleading from New York.

Five.
Robert Owens interests only indirectly as his system was so personal that he never was able to find any setting that it could replicated. Yet, he does bring his ideas to the US, and that is critical to our understanding of early socialism—for it is here where we encounter the system that in effect is the exception that proves the rule in Josiah Warren’s Modern Times on Long Island, New York. Warren had been a member of Owen’s community in New Harmony, Indiana and he hated it. The work was routinized, it was hierarchical--nasty, and everyone was in everyone else’s business—good, solid socialism. So to counter this he formed the village of Modern Times. There were to be, as Warren announced, "no organization, no delegated power, no constitutions, no laws or by-laws," no "rules or regulations but such as each individual makes for himself and his own business; no officers, no prophets nor priests." If they had meetings, it was not for the purpose of agreeing on common plans, but merely "for friendly conversation," for music, for dancing or for "some other pleasant pastime." "Not even a single lecture upon the principles upon which we were acting" had ever "been given on the premises. It was not necessary; for, as a lady remarked, 'the subject once stated and understood, there is nothing left to talk about: all is action after that.' " In other words, an anarchy where the individual is sovereign—with nothing in common with socialism.

Six.
So what of the newest craze, so-called libertarian socialism? Given the history outlined above, and mixing in the various hyper-authoritarian Marxist socialisms is a libertarian socialism even possible? Even thinkable? And where are the theorists? Anytime a so-called libertarian socialist is asked to name a thinker that usually say Bakunin, Kropotkin or Goldman—in other words anarchists. It would help if someone, somewhere could name just one libertarian socialist theorist (who was not an anarchist) instead of the constant piggybacking of thinkers who in general loathed socialism. As anarchists we stand on ground that no one else of our tendency has seen for about 100 years. Our ideas are popular, there is praise for fighting fascists, and the growth of large commune-like experiments continues apace. To stop now and let our ideas be co-opted by our traditional enemies, those who have theorized hierarchical, nonsensical societies that strip freedom and refusal from the hands of individuals would do a terrible disservice to what may very well be a bright future—illuminated by individuals dreams and scores of Molotovs.

Comments

intellectual dishonesty for the win! no libertarian marxist theorists? the Situationists, Maurice Brinton, Wilhelm Reich, Castoriadus, Midnight Oil... just for starters. to be clear: i’m no socialist, and the intrusion of all forms of leftism into anarchist thought has derailed anarchist practice for decades, but this rant is petty and the historical void of late 20th century radical political developments is inexcusable.

At least for their era the Sits applied an aesthetic resurrected from the Dadaist era, punk and grunge also. One could defiantly deny any Marxist legacy or continuity in their founding precepts, however one must reluctantly acknowledge the significance of Marx's critique of capitalism for its relevancy in the early stages of the Industrial revolution. Alas, the remnant bones of the Marxisaurus will not lie still beneath the layers of 21st Century's sediment,.,

Problem is he turned an acute analysis into over a thousand pages of writing and his structural derivatives turned that into a general analysis that became the default radical frame of reference for the doomed 20th century. Stirner on the other hand does not even do half those pages but he talked about the general things that matter in regards to power and authority. He remains the most potent and radical of the post Hegelians. Hopefully the radicals of this century get it. The 4chan Stirner memes are a good start comparable to the anarchists who started within the punk subculture, given that memes are the new music I have some hope.

Yeah that default should have had *WARNING, Factory settings only for 19th Century Europe*. The revolutionaries assumed that a 20th Century underdeveloped region under colonial rule was equivalent sociologically and culturally to a X-tian European nation under feudalism. The disparities could only be non-apparent to an arrogant invader, thus the incompatibility of Marxist doctrine to many regions and cultures because it was as imperialistic as the capitalism it claimed to be replacing. If only Stirner's work, with its direct approach to the analysis of individual sovereignty and the perception of power as an autonomous possession and psychological mindset which wielded it's own authority and agency, if only the proles and peasants had had the strength to raise their eyes above the clods of clay and the poverty of slavery,,,,,?,,,but who am I to doubt their sufferings, they had no choice, anything that promised to free them from starvation would be grasped at, since they were unable to comprehend the concept of mind over matter as a revolutionary tool,.,

Russian serfs rioted and fought back. Mostly slaughtered, but their hunched backs make beautiful subjects for oil paintings. When they were “freed,” the nobility complained and threatened a revolt. Tsar ended up making the serfs pay the nobles for land, but the “free” didn’t have tools or seeds. (Lots of dept). Then there was military conscription. The state pretty much used their bodies to fill mI’d-puddles and block the wind. Then came NIHILISM!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn’t obvious to me. I thought you wrote of hope as if the stirner memes on the 4chan sites were a step closure to your utopic future. But, you have hope in a more short-term objective ( that individuals who are critical thinkers will pursue stirner. Also, your original statement was obvious. Got it. Thank you for clarifying.

Stirner will never scale in terms of historical ideological register like Marx does at least not during the modern epoch. That's actually a testament to how good he is that he hasn't had registered, and subsequent recuperated, success.

I can't believe that you liberal Leftards are still low enough to prey upon and patrol the anarchist milieus as a Stasi would. I used to think you're dolts, but actually you're sick in the head. As therapy, I'd say you should GTFO of politics, which is the only way to get back to the "real world".

You know nothing if you think Marx is bullshit. Marx is far more important than every stupid anarchist theorist and the avoidance of his theory by idiots means nothing to me. Dunk your dumb heads in the toilet to cool those small brain cells, you idiot.

How could the Sits "resurrect" anything from punk or grunge, since they long preceded those cultural movements? And they were far more influenced by surrealism than dada.

Furthermore its impossible to deny the centrality to situationist thought of basic Marxian categories such as alienation, reification, commodity, class, revolution, councils, self-management. Marx, Lukacs, Lefebvre, Castoriadis and stamped all over their work.

I'm unsure whether you can comprehend the state of spontaneous amorality minus the traditional values controlling ones beliefs and actions. The Dadaists opposed the rigid values of traditional aesthetics and created works which had no attachment to the social order. For instance, Duchamp inverted a urinal and exhibited it as a fountain, symbolically, the object which formerly received the waste produce by inversion became the source of life giving water. This could be interpreted as an attempt to express the idea of a cycle in the process of life within nature, challenging the Western linear march towards Utopianist or eschatological pursuits, an attempt to challenge Empire's stagnant and blind conquest of all things natural and wild. Duchamp was the first anti-artist. Punk and grunge also discarded established static aesthetics for a new direction and vitality, A recurring historical phenomena when youth encounters the traditional values of the preceding generations.,.

Exactly. It is tiresome anarchists that can't read shit that get everything wrong, all the time. They want anarchists to be team players, to conform to Stirner and his stupidity. He had his years and was quickly surpassed. To romanticize some drunk school teacher who never lived far from his mother has weakened anarchists in recent years. They want to believe. They think they are tearing down belief and systems, while never stepping outside their basements to check the light of day. Yeah, Stirner is about as special as a snowflake and his worshippers believe his killed god, yet playing pretend has never changed anything. They are proud morons that celebrate their own poops and they think we should give a shit? No, you keep your poop and mine will go down the toilet with a resounding flush. To have no illusions is to not play tricks on your brain to create the freedom of a prisoner, but rather to break chains, challenge systems and kill those responsible for the enslavement.

Victory to the humble egoists who are anti-victory actually. They have enslaved the leftists with their own Marxist self-imposed righteous crusade. Charge at tilting windmills Marxist scoundrels until the sun goes supernova for all I care, fight your futile battles on the red soil of your ressentiment.

This article is pretty dishonest but like how much experience do you have with anarchy in other countries cause I have a lot and people are doing silly shit all the time everywhere bro. Anarchists in the USA are foolish for other reasons. Not cause they are writing poorly thought out opinion pieces.

Not only is it zealously dishonest, the thing that creeps me out about this kind of red baiting is how it stinks of horse. As in, horseshoe theory. Anarchists who REALLY want to ignore the red on the red and black flag always sounded an awful lot like some of the now familiar alt-right talking points.

Real anarchist analysis knows that authoritarianism is its own tectonic fault-line, not the concept of redistributing wealth to the poor. "Socialism" is only inherently authoritarian in that it openly acknowledges the rich shouldn't get to openly hoard all the wealth. Were a socialist regime to happen in the north american context, obviously anarchists would still be opposed to the state but I wouldn't shed any tears about a massive tax hike on the wealthy, which is the only substantive change we'd be talking about?!

Don't worry... the North American kids adhering to any of the 20th century marxism already are excelling at it. Sometimes you'll see them affording te luxury of building a commune, yet only for their posh elitist group of comrades.

I don't see how the commies cannot be thre booj. Social-economic privilege and class don't have to be related to ideology, and if you'd knew anything about the contemporary French Communist Party you'd feel like digging yourself a hole where to disappear into after realizing you wrote this comment.

But feel free to travel around in France asking people about. Expect laughter and being thrown names like "stupid Amuhrican".

Cool story bro. Too bad that is all it is. If you walk around the ghetto a little bit you could get the sentiment that everyone is an opioid addicted tribalist. Stirner isn't answering anything for anybody, so selling him or other long retired thinker isn't going to go anywhere. Actually learn something and you will see that Marx is not perfect, but has deeply developed multiple strains of thought that his predecessors have spread around the world. Just because we are in a lull of crisis doesn't negate Marx. If anything, the weakness of Stirner screams all the louder as his followers present no answers and proudly thump their chests, yet bend over backwords at the first sign of reactionary thinking. "Oh magic and nationalism, those are spooks, but we can hang. Marx tho, that's a big spook and I can't hang because I'm a stupid moron that eats their own shit."

Well actually Stirner elaborated and refined Marx's theory of commodity fetishism and alienation of the proles, it's not like Stirner hated Marx, he only wished to develop and perfect some neglected aspects of Marx's theories,.,

And that's what makes Marx all the more pathetic. He had the chance to build on the post Hegelian discourse of Stirner who individuated Hegel. Instead that fool inverted Hegal and created another ideological grand narrative that fed into modern ideology.

Face it, Marx is a failed thinker on the whole compared to Stirner who provides a proper post-structuring of Hegel not an inverted restructuring.

Your typically vague unsubstantiated assertions are worthless. You never base your criticisms on what Marx actually says, in fact I doubt you've ever read him. You speak to us in stereotypes and cliches, while treating others reasoned arguments with dimissive contempt. You're a crass propagandist in thrall to a crude Stirnerism, incapable of independent reading or thinking, or intellectual honesty. I find your online persona quite despicable and frankly a major stain on this site.

Not all of him but enough(first two volumes of Capital and bits and pieces of the other stuff like that dreaded German Ideology which Stirnerians like John Welsh have already dealt with). I understand the basic idea of his thought structure and cut to the bone in ways that tick the likes of you off which is fine by me.

The man’s overrated in the grand scheme of things. In regards to the things you listed above addressed to Le Way he basically lifted ideas of alienation and reification from the thought structure of Hegal much like Steiner. His claim to fame in regards to commodity and class are not that impressive when you realize that these are branching problems and not root problems. Commodity fetishism stems from greater object fetishism rooted in psycho modern recursive and reified thought and behaviour habits and compulsivity. Class is a branch of status based forms and functions.

In a nutshell Marx’s claims to fame are branching problems at most be it capital commodity or class. The reason Stirner is the superior thinker is that he cuts to the bone and gets to the root of the reified problem by looking at a primary mode of alienation and submission.

Fact is Marx is an overrated radical who produced derivatives that shitstained the 20th century likely beyond repair. Preferable derivatives like the sits Cammatte and DuPont today are good BECAUSE they deviate from his thinking towards more Stirnerian anarchic modes of orientation.

and it so much as says what christians do. “there’s nothing wrong with christianity, you just didn’t read your bible hard enough.”

how pathological!

SE, not only have I heard the same thing about marx from an-coms (that are really just communists after all), but about chomsky too.

in fact the local leftists that rub elbows with anarchists (but are really just green party always trying to get into public office in the city govt) have twisted it around to: “hey you’re that guy that will just rant about chomsky.”. yeah once. one time.

i have 7 books, and have read 12. have listened to cds, watched documentaries. re-read multiple of his books. still own them for whatever reason. yet, “you just haven’t tried hard enough at reading chomsky.”

I understand yet deride the butthurt of faithful lib-socs (or anarcho-leftists) here... This text, while being a too-brief historical summary, does remind us of the sheer incompatibility between equality and freedom, which is basically the ontological rift between socialism and anarchism.

You want a fair, just system based on the philosophies of pompuous romantics? That's cool. Not going to hate you for it. But just keep in mind that when you come about to enforce your social justice and "community" on my face, this might piss me off...

Like it or not, the activists and others who fought against capitalism in the beginning of the 19th century all considered themselves socialists, including anarchists. Early anarchists described themselves as socialists and their project as socialism. The zeitgeist at the time was that capitalism was regarded as a strange new brutal regime that was anti-'social,' since it split work from domestic life and broke families apart to go work in factories. After the enclosure of the commons, households and neighborhoods no longer controlled their own economic fates. The social bonds between workers, craftsmen, farmers, and the community market were broken. Instead, more and more people were forced off the land and into the 'Satanic Mills', where capitalist owners worked their workers half to death for mere subsistence wages. People who were strangers to each other, now worked together under another stranger, the boss, who commanded strict discipline. This all happened relatively quickly, and it created social divisions. Hence 'anti-social'.

It was only by the middle of the 20th century, after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, that the word 'socialism' had changed meanings to refer to anything related to Marxism-Leninism, and then later to mean anything referring to an emphasis on welfare state planning, like in the Scandinavian countries. This seems to be where the meaning is now.

“...after the Bolshevik revolution...”
sorry comrade, you also have a few gaps in your story. little things like the schism(s) in the International, the explicitly anti-anarchist founding of the second (social democratic) international, the hoodwinking of the Mexican syndicalists by their erstwhile socialist allies, the conflicts inside the IWW... all these examples of irreparable problems between authoritarian socialists and anti-authoritarian anarchists predate the leninist seizure of state power. by the time of the bolshevik counter-revolution, most conscious anarchists were already suspicious of the label “socialist”.

Of course there were lots of schisms in the International, both in Germany and in France, as well as later within the provisional government in Russia. Proudhon began calling himself an anarchist by 1840, and Marx and Engels established the Communist League in Brussels in 1847. However, they all still referred to themselves in a general way as socialists, an overarching term meant to denote a belief in egalitarianism, communal property, and opposition to capitalism. It fostered the birth of a whole bunch of different kinds of socialisms, from utopian socialism to revolutionary socialism. There is a book by Marie Fleming on Elisee Reclus and anarchism called The Anarchist Way to Socialism that touches on this.

Being a 'socialist' in 19th century Europe was kind of like calling yourself a 'humanist' now. It was meant in a broad general sense.

In the broadest sense they are all grand cults, since belief in any ideology immediately implies the following of a leader or god. The humanist is subsumed by the Abrahamic morality and Roman law, the pillars of Western civilization, in a less broad general sense.,.

That's part of my writing project coming down the pipe but a big development to come for anarchy in the 3rd millennium will be anarchy WITHOUT predestination. That would entail a VERY different orientation. Stirner not Proudhon represents the foundation of how you go about this.

Off on a tangent here, but Utopianism after the Enlightenment was the substitution of a future heaven on earth which replaced the eschatology of the X-tian faith and it's predestined afterlife. Forever procrastinating, authority delayed the founding of a spontaneous instant becoming and the orientation you are talking about.,.

Also, any sociologist or philosopher worth their salt must have a broad scope on the history of human evolution. It seems that Engels somehow has flown under the radar and escaped the criticism he so much deserves in contributing to this sordid ideological farce called Marxism. Little is mentioned of both their references to the social structures of primitive cultures and how they had fashioned their own new manifesto around the model of the noble savage before capitalism as representative of the new modern socialist proletarian. How incredibly shallow and naive, looking back to that era, are these romantic constructions of the ideal utopia, based on tribalism and economics on how a waterbuffulo is butchered and divided amongst the starving horde, how quaint? Stirner just cut to the chase, red claw and Nature's creative nothing as the blank pallet on which spontaneous and ongoing experiences and inventions crystallized according to each regions demands and desires manifested within inter-relational dynamics.

I actually recall a comment somewhere were Kevin talks about the necessity of some type of minimal confinement system in a future communist society. That puts him in common with all the other authoritarian scumbags throughout history. Why does he complain about cops when his legitimacy of a confinement system would simply create new ones.

The man's not even good enough to be a retard's Bob Black from the 1970s when the latter was still an ultra leftist.

Anarchism was and will always be, about the class war, first and foremost, for as long as capitalism exists. Socialism as a general concept or a systemic analysis of the tensions between equality and freedom is essential to a serious understanding of the last SEVERAL CENTURIES OF HISTORY. To try and ignore this makes you an idiot or a demagogue so take your pick cause there's only the two choices.

Authoritarian manifestations of socialism that morphed in to despotism were failed experiments and an entirely separate issue. They failed because of much older evil spirits that haunt the human condition: myths of the strongman, corruption of power, the tendency for periods of violent upheaval to elevate the worst aspects of these things, etc. The only thing this has in common with economics is its intersection with power. Which is to say that choices made by individuals are about power, not economic theories that redistribute wealth.

“...only two choices...”
dude, you’re hilarious. polarized binaries are the stuff of idiots and demagogues. a rejection of the vague and misleading label “socialist” is the beginning of true anticapitalism. socialists (or leftists) have almost always been semi-disguised capitalists, using the logic and programs of production, wages, markets, and resource extraction. the only real distinction revolves around what to do with profits. oh, and then there’s that thorny issue of the state and government... go peddle your junk to other sozis

I'm not talking about your opinions or mine fool. That's the part you don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around. You also don't seem to be able to tell the difference between an economic theory and a state … which is pretty sad.

It's not demagoguery for me to say "the vast majority of anarchist history is interwoven with the concept of wealth redistribution", it's simple fact. Whether it was bank robbing or collective bargaining through trade unions or welfare, that could all be described as "socialist thinking".

Pretending that it didn't happen, on the other hand? Either you're a dumbass or you're trying to convince everyone of something other than historical fact, because you have an agenda, which is the definition of demagoguery.

My agenda is reading history books and being "like wtf" when you try and rewrite it with your nonsense. So? Do you just suck at history or are you here to try and peddle a bunch of redbaiting bullshit?

Other poster here,so you just read history, and think modern China's economic theory is separate from the State. Dumbass, this is where your leftist rhetoric and dogma show us how stupid and rigid Marxism is.

Duh, Mao reads Marx, goes on long march, promises peasants food and a roof over their heads if they fight for him. Industrializes the country, opens up markets and trades globally and militarizes modern China into Marxist capitalist binary State. Executes prisoners and enemies in the Marxist tradition.

Yeah … it's not your terrible, halfwit logic that's hard to follow … but that has almost nothing to do with what I said. Other than … everyone who reads Marx is the same to you … which also has nothing to do with what I said … but damn! Is it ever dumb though! Good job!

Newbie here, you seem to be the guy who is the resident know all, so could you tell me who the antifarters are, all my friends at rainbow connection suggest I join their Marxist ranks and refine my sphincter speech patterns, and you seem to have the gift, waiting,,,,,,!

Le Way … "the resident know-all" reads the material before blathering. I'm able to differentiate between my opinions and stuff that is more-or-less objectively true. You can crawl over this bar too, if you actually try ;)

Umm, modern China came from the other side of the big round ball called Earth you dimwitted primitive communist who thinks everything is about sharing wealth and capital equally, as if that hairbrained proposition has ever succeeded beyond 2 kids sharing a can of soda, hahaha, dumb deluded leftist.

Of course if you define "socialism" as "state socialism" then anarchism isn't socialism. But why then did Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Durruti, Makhno, etc., call themselves "socialists" and/or "communists"? They meant to reject capitalism and to advocate a society of cooperation, self-management, and production for use rather than profit--that is, authentic, libertarian, socialism.

Were there libertarian-autonomous Marxists? Yes, although always a minority tendency, compared to the social-democrats and Leninists. The author asks for names: William Morris, Rosa Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Paul Mattick Sr., C.L.R. James, Castoriadis, Erich Fromm, Daniel Guerin.... I do not say that these folks had the "correct" interpretation of Marx, only that they thought they were interpreting Marx in a libertarian-radically democratic, humanistic, and working class way, which in fact overlapped with anarchist politics.

BTW Daniel Guerin, who generally advocated a class-struggle libertarian socialist perspective, integrating anarchism and Marxism, nevertheless respected the work of Stirner. As a Gay man and activist, Guerin valued Stirner's individualism and anti-moralism.

Just to note Wayne, I actually would like to see the return of a plumb-line orange and black libertarian socialist ideology to unseat the current neo-classical libertarian ideology. I think it would be good for the overall thought terrain of anarchy as a way for certain people to get their starts(someone like Alex Strekal for example who began black and gold).

Having said all that socialism(even the most preferable kind) ain't anarchy.

So yeah, I wrote this piece after a drinking bout with some comrades--and then forgot to sign the damn thing. So sue me. Responses have been exactly as expected--conflating council communists like Pannekoek, Castoriadis, with what I was asking for, a theorist who identified as a libertarian socialist who was not also first and foremost an anarchist. No eligible responses yet. Price goes further telling us that folks like Makhno and Durruti--both of whom were imprisoned by socialist regimes, were really socialists. The Inclusion of the Trot C.L.R. James shows just how close Price remains to the ideas of the Butcher of Kronstadt. Finally, Korsch (cf Malaise of the Left 1974) moved into anarchist circles completely, as did the mature Guerin. No points there. (Oh and Midnight Oil is an Australian surf band--so that's a near-miss.)

The point of the piece, as well, was lost. That, from its very non-Marxist beginnings, socialism was imbued with the spirit of authority, control, and eventually--repression. Some apologists speak of failed experiments in socialism--like there were one or two. Every experiment in socialism has eventually led to tyranny. Think of it--every last one. That's no mistake--the moment of that tyranny was present at socialism's birthing.

Finally the argument that anarchism has always been about class struggle is ludicrous and verifiably wrong. With the snapping of the First International an entire successful branch of Black Anarchy (or in the US the post-left) arose and as of 1970 in NA has become the pre-eminent tendency. Even Bakunin by 1873 was taunting the socialists and never thereafter mentioned the proletariat as the Revolutionary Subject. Rather the lumpen, the gutter-dwellers, the declasse, takes on this role in his writings. As a Black Anarchist this is my tradition; and wearing rags, refusing work, and taking no shit is my inheritance.

The answer to your question is in your own post … take Bakunin for instance, he eventually grew frustrated with the prole and socialists … as in, the thinking derived from the same place but lead to schisms.

THEREFORE ANARCHIST THINKING AND SOCIALIST THINKING ARE FROM THE SAME LINEAGE.

I'm the definition of lumpen, a petty crook among other things but I'm not struggling with this simple fact like you all seem to be? The original point was everybody hated the shameless self indulgence of the capitalists and ended up disagreeing about how to attack this conceptual problem, therefore, it was tactical disagreements. The basic problem remains but you're all adamant that you have nothing in common with other people who hate the rich … which smells like COINTELPRO mixed with a heaping dose of stupidity to me. A bizarre form of collective amnesia ...

ooohhh but what about Proudhon's misogynism and anti-semitism, Bakunin's secret societies, Kropotkin's support for the war, Stirner's "might makes right" and affirmation of "war of all against all". And Proudhon's petty-bourgouis system of production and Bakunin's collectivist coz version... Does this mean "anarchism" is inherently authoritarian?

But seriously. Marx was a better anarchist than the anarchists. At a greater level of sophistication and rigor, his theory is essentially anti-state, anti-collectivist, anti-economy and - if unevenly - anti-work. His whole aim is the liberation of individuals from all forms of alienation and the achievement of "self-activity". I think Debord's one-time pal Henri Lefebvre put it well when he rejected the anarchist label while insisting he was a Marxist in order to reach to realise anarchy. Many others in the heterodox tradition have been arguing and extending similar interpretations for nearly a century, since the council commies at least. More recently John Holloway of the Open Marxism has produced most obviously anarchist conclusions from a position strongly influenced by the early Frankfurters. etc etc

But don't worry, fierce anarchist, forget real and intellectual history and continue your fantastic battle against "socialism/communism", alongside the liberals which you are in essence.

Those quotes and positions are not as damning to the credited thinkers as you think they are compared to Marx's structural failings. I actually agree with the Stirner quotes when they are viewed in proper context. Might does(at least partially) make right and that can be quite good if those who you prefer have the day. It need not be a Ragnor Redbeard fetish. War against all can be an egoist option along with finding union with those you like. Proudhon does not have the weaknesses you think he does and people like Shawn Wilbur do a pretty good job defending him against Marxist hacks(see this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/7oyqrm/why_market_agno...)

Marx had a very accute specific critique that over elasticized and eventually broke into a general but very flawed conception of alienation and oppression which littered the 20th century for the worse. He is not essentially what you say he is, at most he achieved half-way analysis that culminated with very flawed conclusions and HORRENDOUS(the wars and economic imperial developments that he cheered on) practice due much to the fact that he never had the ethical emphasis of the anarchists or the egoist emphasis of Stirner. That's essentially his problem. He never went all the way like Stirner did and he took things like base and surface WAYYY too seriously.

The issues you listed above for the Stirner and the anarchists are marginal failures. Marx's post 1845 turn towards things like cheerleading capital development are structural perennial failures and he lacks a solid general radical analysis like that of a Stirner to make up for his hideous positions.

...makes me quite incompatible with the stern, clean, orderly ethos of libertarian socialists. Okay I can get along to some limited extent with one or two of them, but I sure wouldn't be living in their squats if they started one. Like I tried to live in social anarchist squats in Greece and I had to kick myself out after a few days. Those people got this special way creating lifelessness... making it permeate and pervade spaces, and time as well. Crypto black magik? I dunno!

Let's fucking assert and celebrate LIFE, damit. Distributing robotic texts to proles who don't even read? I feel more like I gotta learn from other people's ability to live fully, not just to be in the moment but seize it. Because that's really the biggest fucking struggle I and many others are facing. I don't care about your agenda for a better social future through from imagined "We". Got maybe 20-30 years of life left, chaps, if a piano doesn't fall on my head. Life is great, okay? Been wasting it way too much in so many unthinkable ways that I don't want another formal assembly for tiresome lectures.

I personally find this obsession with order, symmetry, long generic exposés that over-explain everything to the point of inducing sleep even before fishing to read the intro (lol); to be far too close to puritans, and not exactly the kind of approach to drive in the very proles they're seeking to reach. Not gonna point the finger at anyone specifically, but you know what I'm talking about.

Moreover, "anarchism" is a problematic word that sounds like a pile of ashes in my mouth. Perhaps it used to refer to a spectrum of activity and sensibilities, but it's been heavily burdened with socialist ideology to a point of being quite unappealing. Isn't really just some weird discursive game -that's definitely not fun but hey that's the point!- of mutuallly validating opinions together through social media or living room discussions? Or anarchism is really just some aberration created by this continous tendency of pushing for an ideal society without all the stuff we don't like (i.e. socialism)?

Weary times have arrived, post-battle, the fingers and tendons strained to breaking point by the virtuosity upon the keyboard, like List, stretching the physical until it breaks through into the sublime reaches of tne soul, the existentialist and egoist rests against the pillar of inner strength and resilience, and whittles into the old oak bean some more notches representing the fallen Marxists who have fallen or collapsed under the weight of overwhelming superiority by the Stirnerians.

The best part is … I doubt a single one of these people actually identifies as a marxist … you're all just smoking way too much american-as-fuck hysterical mccarthyist bullshit.

I'm JUST SAYING all these ideas originated from the same basic problem with the people who hoard the wealth and what to do about them. That was the whole point of everything that lead to anarchism/socialism/communism and so on. Just different approaches to the same problem. If you can't see that, you either don't want to or you're deliberately trying to confuse people.

El Errante (the author of the original statement) doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. “Council communists like Pannekoek” were not “first and foremost anarchist[s].” The council communists split from the Leninists but completely regarded themselves as Marxists. (Which is why Mattick wrote those many books on Marxist political economy.) Castoriadis was not a council communist. Beginning as a Trotskyist, he moved to libertarian Marxism, and eventually rejected Marxism in toto—but he called himself a “libertarian socialist” and did not regard himself as an anarchist. Makhno and Durruti were oppressed by “socialist regimes,” which is to say statist governments which called themselves “socialist” (and in Durruti’s case included anarchists). This does not change the fact that M. and D. called themselves “socialists.” The reference to “the Trot C.L.R. James” ignores the fact that James rejected Trotskyism and broke with all Trotskyist organizations. “Korsch moved into anarchist circles completely,” but did not stop regarding himself as a Marxist. Guerin regarded himself as someone who was synthesizing Marxism and anarchism. In his last years he focused on the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg. Finally, to deny that the historical mainstream of anarchism was for class struggle is just wacky. Even the “new anarchists” who reject class struggle will admit that it was a dominant theme in historical anarchism at least up until World War II (when the post-war thirty-year prosperity began).

In short, El Errante has mastered the style of a certain U.S. president: complete ignorance of a subject, no investigation of the facts, but expressing angry opinions with great self-confidence.

Hear hear! The remarkable tendency to strawman other anarchists on this issue is the only thing I even find interesting about this essay or the analysis on display from the majority of comments here. I'm not from the US and I can't help but wonder if you would see as much terrible analysis on display from other milieus, specifically because of the uniquely american capacity for doublethink, wild conjecture and misrepresentation of their bogeyman reds.

I'm not a mass org type, I'm vehemently antiauthoritarian, I'm a post-leftist AND a lumpenprole in every practical sense. The critiques of the old left all fly with me but to try and rewrite history like this? Why?

What better time than under Trump to return to crux of the issue? The ultra-rich are in the process of rounding you all up for their final solution and you not only don't want to talk about it but you'd prefer to pretend anarchists never did?! Good fucking luck over the next few decades if you don't even know which way is up.

Well you get it Wayne. You're pulling gnat shit outta pepper--my question is...show me one, just one person who refers to their ideas as libertarian socialist who is not first and foremost an anarchist. You haven't done it, because it can't be done. Neither do Pannekoek nor Castoriadis refer themselves as libertarian socialists. Castoriadis not a council communist? I guess someone else must have ghost-written one of his most influential texts, " Worker's Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society." Do you know who it was?

Korsch's renunciation of Marxism was completed by 1974--its in every text of his after that date--suggest you try reading them. There is no denial that "mainstream" anarchism supported class struggle politics until the 1960's--I never claimed the opposite--rather that accounts for it's ultimate failure. Supporting a class that had ceased to exist.

CLR James never really gave up on Trotsky and never backpedaled on some of the heinous ideas of the Butcher, including World Revolution, democratic centralism, pro-statist anti-colonialism, ad nauseum.

The prevarification of your presentations, the attempted co-option of the anarchist movement by Marxists (like the RSL debacle you helped host--I was there watching it happen--remember?), and the ongoing attempt to channel anarchy back into ideas that ceased having resonance decades ago all belong in your corner. In terms of anger--who compared who to a historically horrible actor? Wasn't me, I'd never do that--but if I did, I'd liken you to some Trotskyite bureaucrat trying to resurrect the rotting corpse of that pince-nez'd demon.

Oh ooh, prepare for lengthy diatribes concerning orthodox Marxism and post-Marxist hairsplitting interpretations of what some dude said 120 years ago in a hall occupied by unionists and workerists with severe psychological imbalances caused by ressentiment and a diet of potato and leek soup washed down with rotgut vodka ;)

There is indeed no point in going further into this argument. El Errante (pzs) just makes things up and asserts them with apparent confidence (hence the comparison to Trump). Castoriadis didn't refer to himself as a "libertarian socialist"? (Pannekoek didn't use "libertarian socialist," he just called himself a Marxist.) Castoriadis was a "council communist" because he wrote an essay advocating councils? "CLR James never really gave up on Trotsky"? Despite his denunciations of Trotsky? He was for "democratic centralism"? (Although it is true that James continued to believe in the "heinous idea" of "World Revolution" just like all the revolutionary anarchists--a point in common.) To respond to all these falsifications of history would take a major essay. And, as "Oh Ooh" Anonymous implies, what would be the point?

Best of all, to E.E., the working class "had ceased to exist." Really? When the number and proportion of modern workers (waged and salaried non-supervisory employees) is at the highest level on a world scale in history? Since most people are in the working class, if we want to change society there has to be a mobilization of this big majority, which includes their issues as workers (as well as other issues of oppression, of course).

El Errante may be sloppy with certain facts, but Price is willfully demagogic when he compares that sloppiness to being exactly like Trump. this type of analogy is always stupid, the current equivalent of Godwin's Law. so there's an automatic (double) fail for Price.

anarchists arguing about the relative merits of a self-identification with particular/peculiar marxist tendencies is best left to private confabs; in public it's demeaning and pointless. can anarchists and other non-specific radicals get some useful analytical tidbits from Castoriadis and Pannekoek? sure. not so many from CLR James, though, since for all his trouble with trotskyism, he never broke with leninism (if EE had said "CLR James never really gave up on Lenin" Price wouldn't have been able to class that as a "falsification of history" -- but really this is hairsplitting). there are even a few gems in Marx. so what? insofar as there are anti-statist perspectives within marxism, it is interesting for anarchists. other analytical perspectives are less interesting or relevant. Price wants to enlist the non-antistatist stuff, which is fine; it's been abundantly clear for the years Price has called himself an anarchist that his anarchism is suffused with anarcho-leftism, with an emphasis on leftism, and more specifically, the trotskyism of his former party associations, and his public embrace of such ideas makes him a lightning rod for pretty much everything that's problematic about contemporary anarchism. it's convenient for those of us who reject the marxist stain to point to the likes of Price when a newbie asks what's wrong with leftism. he retains the marxist insistence on the working class being the Revolutionary Subject of History, a theory that caused a majority of late 19th and early 20th century organizationalist anarchists (misnamed by Price and others as belonging to the exclusive club of "revolutionary anarchism") to descend into the incoherence of "anarcho"-syndicalism and its attendant sectarian deviations like Platformism. mobilizing mass anything has proved to be disastrous to anti-statists, since "the masses" will inevitably prefer to rely on mass-based institutions to take care of social issues instead of having power devolve into smaller units of self-management (we might also call it bolo bolo). the examples of history have therefore made many non- or post-leftist anarchists skeptical of rhetoric about revolution (personally, i retain a certain loyalty to the term, but i totally understand why it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of anti-state radicals). for Price, this is anathema, and the heretic hunting he learned while a trot come to the surface.

what much of this argument comes down to is this: if you believe in mass society, mass mobilizations, mass movements, and social change, then you're a leftist. if you believe that the working class has an inherent responsibility to be part of that mass, then you're a leftist. if you believe in this thing called revolution, then you're a leftist. if you believe that work will have to continue ATR, then you're a leftist. if you believe in the self-determination of "peoples" and nations, then you're a leftist. Price adheres to all of these things. El Errante does not (except for that Rojava thing), which means he's not a leftist.

Online philosophy rooster fights r cool with me! They can allow for educational content just as seen here, while helping to erase many spooks and other crap people have been putting up with idelogically.

What else are patriarchic figures good for anyways, other than smash each other in Clash of Titanarchic Egos? But sure Wayne was DOA kinda like the generic bad dude at pro-westling matches, looks midldly threatening for a while, then off he goes eventually.

Why do I get this sinking feeling that so few of you can make any sense of this stuff without your sectarian reference points?
I'm the other commenter besides wayne this whole time and I'm firmly under the black flag but I won't sit by and listen to shit analysis that denies most of the relevant history.

Boles, your whole rant is nothing but in-group, out-group fallacy. I don't "believe" in any of these things, I only get told I do by people like PZS, that's the real spectre. The issue isn't marxism at all, marx merely outlined the problem.

The issue was always power, therefore wealth concentration and regarding anarchy: what, if anything, anti-authoritarians can do to avoid, break free of or destroy that concentration of power/wealth. Who cares which writers and thinkers helped you understand this? Who cares if somebody was influenced by Marxist-Leninism if they don't wield any power in the present?

Either you're focused on how power is currently distributed or you're having a totally different conversation, so far behind you think you're first.

But "power" is a spook. The only power which has palpable relevance and agency is the autonomous power each individual potentially harnesses. Your perspective is, as usual, blindfolded by the Marxist doctrine of oppression within a binary socio-economic framework.

Mine is simple: based on observing how much easier it is for wealthy people to pay other people with guns and bombs and the like to have their way, at the expense of people without money, guns or bombs. One of us definitely has a blindfold. Are you wearing it or trying to wrap it around somebody else's head?

I did look it up and I'm familiar with his life. Seems a stretch to argue that a guy who spent most of his life working in upper government management wasn't an aristocratic douche, satirist or not. He certainly wasn't writing for the peasants...

During the renaissance most peasants were illiterate, all books up to the 19th Century were never intended for them, except the bible which they had drummed into them every Sunday. You think a 19th Century peasant read Marx lol? Stick to your graphic novels meathead,.,

Like all creative writers he was writing for future readers who sought advice and cerebral stimulation, if you wish to bring class into everything as a motive or bias then discussing anything with you is mind numbing,.,

The issue with the the Marxist and other emphasis on those things is that the problems of wealth concentration and distribution are epiphenomenal and stem from the inherent problems of humans and resource intensity. The fact is the hierarchical asymmetry that we see is a functional consequential outgrowth of resource based power. Wealth concentration serves a function in terms of producing and reproducing a certain type of materially complex society. Until agents of anarchy realize that symmetry of access in regards to resource means of production will probably entail a contraction they will go no where in regards to dealing with this problem which ultimately goes back to reified attachment.

These problems could be mediated away overtime via some type of machineological cybernetic society but then there wouldn't be much of the corporeal anarchy that we all want would there.

Look at this windy crap! Same old tune from you ziggy. You toss out all these $10 words to try and hide the fact that you're effectively trying to defang anarchist thinking. "Wealth concentration serves a function" … it certainly does! The question is, for whom? And why would the rest of us ever treat this "function" as anything but open hostility towards us and respond in kind?

If you resign yourself to the implied hostility of wealth concentration, if you submit to being ruled by the divine right of the rich, what does that make you?

Which is being held back by binary predestined struggle based anarchism. You can keep on intellectually hallucinating to your cartoonish analysis of wealth disparity but the fact of the matter is the dynamics for why these things happen are complex and multi-factoral and not reducible to some acute core of rich fat cats. Part of what defines wealth in the mass material sense is the who and the how of circulation and all examples of mass material wealth that we see in the context of history and leviathan involve asymmetries.

I want these things gone as much as you do but ultimately you are looking at a critique of material wealth as such something most class warriors are not ready for. In terms of for the "whom" in your question it's really more of a what then a whom. Rich fat cats are simply branches of the problematic function of leviathan resource wealth not the root. The answer to the wealth problem can start with demonopolization ala Tucker but ultimately what is needed is new archaic corporeal types of human relations which will not be found in binary struggle and class war.

In terms of the the whom in your comment it's more about the what. Wealth is defined more for a what then a whom. It begins as a zero sum status game and part of the function of that game is asymmetric access which plays a role in its circulation. The wealth class are consequence and not a cause of this and the answer to them is to create new archaic anarchic relationships.

funny a supposed anarchist commenter putting capitalistic dollar values to words! i’ve seen it all now.

and it’s a really constricted imagination. poor and rich are symptoms alike. not the cause. class is a very new phenomenon in human history. and that word is just a signifier for an interpretation of events out of a particular european context. we’ve been enticed by all this class warfare shit before and it’s always ended up in dictatorship. needing a label does not get rid of the label. we end up enforcing the problem as monist code, moral. more leftists actually flat out scared of anarchy (that’s how the world is, because humans aren’t in control and hence why their beliefs give rise to imbalances called externalities). what does any of this leftist trap have to do with anarchy? nada.

That helps a lot when analyzing class as an epiphenomenal branch of power. When it comes to a species drunk on excess they will very much play the zero sum game that maintains excessive visions. To get to the heart of this you have to look at what we do as a psychological species once recursion and reification get going in our language and thought structures. Those two Rs are the game changer. With that comes things like Terror Management which explains a good deal of things(though I'm not a reductionist to it like the fans of that analysis tend to be) when it comes to what humans are willing to allow and put up with. The submission syndrome must be seen as a precursor to the systematic forms of domination that we see and the subsequent epiphenomenal history power constructed oppression branches which modern idpol leftists take as all too concrete.

Then there's also bicameral mind based behavior which may have also played a role in structuring hierarchies. That's a whole other speculative topic onto itself.

Yep, the 2 R's, which after centuries of cumulative tradition are ritualized into cultural mores and morals, and metasize into a culturally appropriate psychological species alien to its own instinctual and intuitive capabilities and desires.,.

Geez. I just wrote in to show that anarchism and socialism are connected. I demonstrated that El Errante was factually wrong in all his references, both about anarchists and libertarian-autonomist Marxists. (It is true, as Boles notes, that if E.E. had written different things which were true then I could not have argued that he only wrote things which were false. Duh.) Boles apparently accepts that E.E. gets it all wrong. But he goes on to denounce me and my political opinions as "a lightning rod for pretty much everything that's problematic about contemporary anarchism. " Wow. "Everything?"

Boles' attack on me and my views is breaking down an open door. I do defend the idea that anarchism has mainly been on the Left, that is, in opposition to capitalism and the state and all oppressive systems. My comment did point out that the oringinal anarchists regarded themselves as socialists--and, I would add, leftists. While I am not "for" a "mass society," (I am, after all a decentralist), I recognize that capitalism has created one. I am indeed for "...mass mobilizations, mass movements, and social change,[by] the working class [and all oppressed people. And I] believe in this thing called revolution...." Apparently, Boles finds this all de facto horrible. Too bad he or she does give us a hint about what is wrong with mobilizations, movements, social change, and working class revolution!

Meanwhile Sir Einzige informs us that "the problems of wealth concentration and distribution are epiphenomenal" But Ziggy, even epiphenomena are real and must be dealt with. And, to top it off, some anti-semitic idiot writes that "the Jews rule the world in financial power." Words fail me.

Yes epiphenomena can have real effects just like a belief in God does for those who don't believe, however, because of the God example and other things like it you treat epiphenomena as a marginal problem not a perennial one. There's a concrete difference for instance between identifying with a historically constructed spook and taking on the mental problems that come with that to being a corporeal victim(black walking down the street) for merely physically corresponding with the categories. For this reason I and others emphasize direct domination and pressures towards submission as opposed to enfranchisement struggles.

In regards to Le Way, I don't think he meant it that way. If I'm not mistaken he actually is Jewish with a fairly flippant non pc sense of humor.

First and foremost I live by personal power which can be expressed in myriad ways. To me, authority holding a gun is not real power, but rather a bluff inducing fear. Not to fear is the ultimate power, this was essentially what I was saying, and it has nothing to do with the materialistic aspects of existence including privilege, race, gender and other conditions. One can rise above most things if one can raise the mind above matter.,.

So you won't acknowledge power until you've actually been shot or shot at? This would be an admirable position if you regularly confronted power but you seem to spend a lot of time here. Perhaps you're the one bluffing?

(1) Le Way writes, "Authority holding a gun is not real power but rather a bluff...." Tell it to the thousands killed by the guns of the U.S. state domestically and around the world every year. (Not to mention every other state.) No, the power of the state is real and must be countered with real counter-power. That is why I advocate mass movements, worker struggles, and revolution, in spite of Bole horror.

(2) Similarly, to Sir E.: Concentration of wealth and power are not only real but they are more than epiphenomena. They exist in a circular (dialectical?) interaction with the social psychology of dependence. The only way to break that social psychology on a massive scale is for people to fight against that concentration of state and capital power. How do people become fit to be free? Only by fighting for freedom. Again, that is why we revolutionary libertarian socialists advocate mass struggles, etc.

I have fought many battles and came out a wiser and stronger person. I did not fight for a cause, but for myself and those I love (no violins played during the many fracas). Material wealth is petty attachment, so is the ephemeral psuedo-power it masks itself with. If you fall for the puppets and their masquerades and spectacle, then you are lost, and beyond reach of my teachings,.,